QUESTION FOR DUCKIE

[duckie]

And, from years of observing other players, their biggest weakness is lack of a structured training program and motivation to practice properly not what aiming method used.

It is all about proper practice and training.

 

[duckie]

Im always willing to share to those with a open mind.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The angle between the two lines that intersect at point B is what I consider the cut angle of a shot...

That's the correct angle, but it's easier to visualize and describe as "the angle between the CB's and OB's directions of travel".

pj
chgo

 

[boogieman]

It is hard to know where someone is coming from if you dont know where they have been.

Meaning, without knowing my past life experiences, you really cant understand why I believe what I do.

I only throw out the no edges thingie at times just to be annoying.

I have no idea why some try to get me to state a sphere has a edge. Believe what you want, I’ll believe what I want.

If thinking in terms of balls having a edge helps you to be consistent, go for it.

Just dont expect everyone will do the same.

Which do you think is more important, the center of what in a 2d world appears to be a circle, or the center of mass of the CB?

 

[boogieman]

What is that the red arrow is pointing to?

The section of the ball that is the thinnest if cut in half and farthest away from center mass at a 90 degree angle from your vantage point.

 

[boogieman]

Yes, because we can't see the 3rd dimension, the unseen portions of the ball. But we know it exists because we see the lighting and color variations on the surface of the balls, which lets the brain know there is another dimension (maybe), and so we are able to perceive a 3rd dimension without really seeing it. I say "maybe" because the brain can be fooled into perceiving a 3rd dimension when there really is none. A 3D painting or drawing proves this. Without the proper lighting/shading, the brain has a hard time interpreting depth, but the basic 2D images that our eyes capture are always there. There are countless 3D illusion images that easily trick the brain into perceiving depth, even though the image is on a flat piece of paper or canvas and there is no depth. There are countless illusion images that utilize 3D perspective with no lighting or shading variances, and the brain has a hard time determining if there is any depth to what we are looking at.

When looking at a ball, a sphere, the circumference of the circular shape we see, from any angle of perspective, is quite easy to perceive as just a simple circle. For fractional aiming purposes, the fact that the ball is actually a sphere and not a circle means nothing. The fractional portions reference the width/diameter of the ball as we see it, which is circular, not spherical. We know a 1/2 ball aim is 1.125" from a center ball aim, not 1.5" (the actual length of the outer portion of the ball, starting at a point closest to us (center ball) and going to the farthest left or right boundary of the sphere's equator, what we can see of it anyway).

For contact point aiming of course the equator of the ball is used, so the fact that the ball is a sphere is important. But it's much easier, for me anyway, to look at a ball and estimate fractional portions based on it's 2.25" diameter, instead of estimating a certain point somewhere on the fat equator where the points get jammed together as they get closer to the outer left or right view of the equator.

Ok, there's my overthinking for the day. Lol

Here's a mental exercise, how would we perceive the balls if there were no lighting from the top side and the bed of the table was it's own illumination source? We would have to have magical illumination with no glare when looking at it, but wouldn't it be wild? I bet it would be like playing pool standing on our heads.

 

[AtLarge]

That's the correct angle, but it's easier to visualize and describe as "the angle between the CB's and OB's directions of travel".

pj
chgo

Yes, the acute angle between those two lines, conventionally. Duckie just seems to be talking about the obtuse angle created by those two lines, which would certainly not be 270 degrees for any cut. (150 degrees for a "30-degree" cut.)

 

[duckie]

Yes, the acute angle between those two lines, conventionally. Duckie just seems to be talking about the obtuse angle created by those two lines, which would certainly not be 270 degrees for any cut. (150 degrees for a "30-degree" cut.)

Opps, my mistake.....thanks good catch.

 

[duckie]

First, something I left out......when Point B, thanks for the drawing BTW, moves in one direction the OB travel line end point moves in the opposite direction and by how much depends on the distance that end point is from the pivot point.

For me, these concepts helps in analyzing why I missed and what type of adjustments need to be made.

I always and I mean always have specific spots on the table I want the OB and CB to go. If I have a specific spot for the OB to go but upon executing the shot, the OB misses that spot, I can adjust according.

For pocketing a OB, I always start with a center pocket placement. With that as a standard, I can make adjustments from there.

Say I miss to the right, I know I need to move Point B to the left and how far away the end point from the pivot point helps be now how much to move Point B.

All my aiming begins with having a specific spots for the OB and CB to go. Just in the pocket is not good enough for me or CB close to where I want it is not good enough for me.

Btw, these concepts are not aiming method specific. These concepts exist regardless of what aiming method is used. They even apply to CTE.

Because of the pocket being wider than the OB, there is a tolerance on where you can put Point B and still have the OB fo in the pocket.

As OB distance increase, that tolerance decreases. This helps be better judge on when to try to go to one side or the other of a center pocket shot, some refer this as cheating the pocket.

 

[duckie]

If are paying attention, life will provide road signs that you are going in the right direction.......

I took a 20+ year break playing pool. After returning and playing awhile, I was getting frustrated because of missing. I realized I didnt know anything about the geometry of a shot.

In those years I didnt play, life gave me a education in alot areas.

So, I came up with these ideas. One being that there is one spot on the table the CB can be to make the OB go where you want.

Now the road sign........I was playing 14.1 alot and one player suggested Babe Cranfields Straight Pool Bible, still got it.

As I was waiting to get the book, I came up with what I described earlier. In the book, he described exactly what I discovered, the spot on the table, and took it one step farther, the Arrow.

It was that moment in time that I knew I was I was in good company in how I aimed and needed nothing more.

Point is, find what works for you, embrace it and dont give a shit if others get it or even accept it, (hint, hint,CTE users).

 

[Poolmanis]

Point is, find what works for you, embrace it and dont give a shit if others get it or even accept it, (hint, hint,CTE users).

This is most important thing. I tried all(but not CTE) aiming systems and finally made my own from pieces there and here. People think sometimes that is not right way to do it but same time they are astounded how i can make all kinda cuts with ease on super tight pockets.. I remember getting all kinda bad advice when i was young. They just kept saying those same things what i see a lot here in forums. "eye never lies" "only good stroke is needed etc.." Those things put my focus to improve on wrong areas and i did not put effort to properly learn geometry of table and physics involved that. I was trying to get near perfect mechanics to perfect but that´s not gonna happen. My stroke nowadays not as good as young and my eyesight start to be bad but i am still a lot better than young me.
Because all knowledge.

 

[Imac007]

Those things put my focus to improve on wrong areas and i did not put effort to properly learn geometry of table and physics involved that.

The bias of center ball combined with ghost ball, works on straight ins, but as angles, speed and distances vary, so do results. Like you, that put doubt in my mind, but I am a shortcuts kind of guy.
The center ball, ghost ball story, if it worked, was a one size fits all solution, and that’s a shortcut.
As to aiming systems, each started to break down, especially once balls got close together and suddenly the system needs to create new references, like bridge length and offset sizes.
I’ve settled on convergent english as a solution.
Is it a one size fits all? No.
It is an alternative to center ball, virtually eliminating throw, an evolution of ghost ball, without cut induced throw.
It‘s somewhat forgiving on the cueing side and as you said, age and eyesight....
I ended up using physics and geometry, more as a subtitle I once saw, said “What's that about and how Can I Use It?“
Dr. Dave did the first part, I threw in the easy stuff, using it and basic geometry to McGyver a cueing method, to minimize throw.
You like me worked with what worked, and were willing to let go of what doesn’t, despite claimers holding onto old beliefs.
Your voice and mine are the blasphemy that pool needs to move forward.
Share what you think will help the next generation, please.

 

[bbb]

The bias of center ball combined with ghost ball, works on straight ins, but as angles, speed and distances vary, so do results. Like you, that put doubt in my mind, but I am a shortcuts kind of guy.
The center ball, ghost ball story, if it worked, was a one size fits all solution, and that’s a shortcut.
As to aiming systems, each started to break down, especially once balls got close together and suddenly the system needs to create new references, like bridge length and offset sizes.
I’ve settled on convergent english as a solution.
Is it a one size fits all? No.
It is an alternative to center ball, virtually eliminating throw, an evolution of ghost ball, without cut induced throw.
It‘s somewhat forgiving on the cueing side and as you said, age and eyesight....
I ended up using physics and geometry, more as a subtitle I once saw, said “What's that about and how Can I Use It?“
Dr. Dave did the first part, I threw in the easy stuff, using it and basic geometry to McGyver a cueing method, to minimize throw.
You like me worked with what worked, and were willing to let go of what doesn’t, despite claimers holding onto old beliefs.
Your voice and mine are the blasphemy that pool needs to move forward.
Share what you think will help the next generation, please.

so
what do you do when you nee 2 tips of outside english to get position??

 

[Imac007]

so
what do you do when you nee 2 tips of outside english to get position??

Assuming my perception is the same as yours and two tips are needed,
The only time I would need that much english is because the cut is a ball near the cushion, and significant cue ball track alteration needed.
That means I would also be using draw and at most a medium stroke, otherwise the draw and english won’t grab properly.
At that cut angle and pace 50% english would be close to gearing english.
So to answer your question, that amount of spin rate and pace would.throw the object ball.
The variable not known here, is how far to the pocket, the object ball has to travel.
Using the described stroke, I would likely need to alter the cut angle aiming to hit it at least a pocket width fat.
That assumes the cue ball travels 2-4 feet before contacting the object ball.

 

[Imac007]

so
what do you do when you nee 2 tips of outside english to get position??

Or the simple answer.
I put on two tips of outside, judged by the situation, and shoot the shot.

 

[bbb]

Or the simple answer.
I put on two tips of outside, judged by the situation, and shoot the shot.

Thanks for the both replies

 

[Imac007]

Thanks for the both replies

Sorry for the initial wall of words.

 

[bbb]

Sorry for the initial wall of words.

No problem
You had spaces to make it readable